Like the imminent prospect of one’s hanging, to paraphrase the 18th century British essayist Dr. (Samuel) Johnson, the suddenly looming possibility of war can concentrate the mind wonderfully.

If that aphorism didn’t apply in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq 10 years ago, it appears to be the case now for key sectors of the U.S. foreign-policy elite – notably, liberal hawks who supported the Iraq war – with regard to the sharp rise in tensions between Iran and both the U.S. and Israel earlier this month.

Amid a crescendo of threats by senior Israeli officials to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, the murder, presumably by Mossad, of a fifth Iranian nuclear scientist in the past several years, and a sharp escalation of Western economic sanctions designed to "cripple" Iran’s economy, Tehran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz brought the until-then hypothetical possibility of war – whether by design, provocation or accident – sharply into view.

The hawkish declarations by Republican presidential candidates eager to prove their love for Israel to Christian fundamentalists and Jewish voters and donors didn’t help, nor did a renewed and intensified drumbeat for "regime change" by some of the same neoconservatives from institutions like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) that led the drive to war in Iraq.

Adding to the sense that war was suddenly a very real possibility, these events more or less coincided with the publication by the influential Foreign Affairs journal of an article entitled "Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike is the Least Bad Option”. It advocated a limited and carefully calibrated U.S. aerial attack on Iran’s air defenses and nuclear sites, and was authored by an academic, Matthew Kroenig, who had just completed a one-year stint as a strategic analyst in the office of the secretary of defense.

The confluence of all these developments provoked a number of influential members of the foreign policy establishment – including several prominent liberal interventionists who had supported the Iraq war – to warn against any further escalation either by the U.S. or Israel.

"We’re doing this terrible thing all over again," wrote Leslie Gelb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, the think tank that publishes Foreign Affairs, in the Daily Beast, in an appeal for Senate hearings on the implications of war with Iran.

"As before, we’re letting a bunch of ignorant, sloppy-thinking politicians and politicized foreign-policy experts draw ‘red line’ ultimatums. As before, we’re letting them quick-march us off to war," warned Gelb, a repentant Iraq-war hawk, about the chorus of neoconservatives and other hawks with whom he had previously been aligned.

On the pages of The New Republic, Kenneth Pollack, a former top CIA analyst at the Brookings Institution whose 2002 book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, was cited frequently by liberal hawks before the war, argued not only against any further escalation, but also suggested that the sanctions track on which the Barack Obama administration and the European Union have increasingly relied was proving counterproductive.

"The problem is that these sanctions (against the Central Bank of Iran) are potentially so damaging that they could backfire," he wrote, citing their possible negative impact on the West’s own struggling economies and the difficulty of sustaining them diplomatically over time if they resulted in the kind of "humanitarian catastrophe" inflicted by the sanctions regime against Iraq from 1992 until the invasion.

Moreover, he went on, "…the more we turn up the heat on Iran, the more Iran will fight back, and the way they like to fight back could easily lead to unintended escalation. Doubtless such a war would leave Iran far, far worse off than it would leave us. But it would be painful for us too, and it might last far longer than anyone wants…"

Meanwhile, another influential liberal hawk, Princeton Prof. Anne-Marie Slaughter, argued in project-syndicate.org that the West and Iran were playing a "dangerous game" of "chicken" and that the West’s current course "leaves Iran’s government no alternative between publicly backing down, which it will not do, and escalating its provocations."

"The more publicly the West threatens Iran, the more easily Iranian leaders can portray America as the Great Satan to parts of the Iranian population that have recently been inclined to see the U.S. as their friend," wrote Slaughter, who stepped down as director of the policy planning office under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"It is time for cooler heads to prevail with a strategy that helps Iran step back," she added, suggesting that the aborted Turkish-Brazilian 2010 effort at mediation between the P5+1 and Iran be revived.

Yet another Iraq hawk, New York Times columnist Bill Keller, attacked the Foreign Affairs article, assuring his readers that Kroenig’s former colleagues at the Pentagon "were pretty appalled by his article, which combines the alarmist worst case of the Iranian nuclear threat with the rosiest best case of America’s ability to make things better."

Contrary to Kroenig’s predictions, Keller wrote, "…an attack on Iran is almost certain to unify the Iranian people around the mullahs and provoke the supreme leader to redouble Iran’s nuclear pursuits, only deeper underground, and without international inspectors around. Over at the Pentagon, you sometimes hear it put this way: Bombing Iran is the best way to guarantee exactly what we are trying to prevent."

Indeed, in a reply to Kroenig entitled "Not Time to Attack Iran", Colin Kahl, who had also just left the Pentagon at the end of December after two years as the head of Middle East policy, argued that Kroenig’s "picture of a clean, calibrated conflict is a mirage. Any war with Iran would be a messy and extraordinarily violent affair, with significant casualties and consequences."

Among other objections, Kahl, a senior fellow at the hawkish Center for a New American Security (CNAS), predicted that a pre-emptive strike of the kind promoted by Kroenig could well spark a regional war, solidify popular support for the regime in Tehran, and transform "the Arab Spring’s populist antiregime narrative into a decidedly anti-American one."

Indeed, much of Kahl’s analysis was subsequently backed up by Gen. Michael Hayden (ret.), who, as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency during George W. Bush’s second term, could hardly be called a liberal.

According to the "Cable" blog on foreign policy.com, Hayden, who served as the head of the Pentagon’s National Security Agency from 1999 to 2005, told a small group convened at the Center for National Interest last week that top Bush national security officials had concluded that a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities – whether by Israel or the U.S. – would be counter-productive.

The Israelis, he reportedly said, "aren’t going to (attack Iran)… They can’t do it, it’s beyond their capacity. They only have the ability to make this (problem of Iran’s nuclear program) worse."

And while the U.S. has the ability to mount a campaign, it could only serve as a short-term fix. "What’s move two, three, four or five down the board? I don’t think anyone is talking about occupying anything."

Its time that the israel firsters and neocons be told to shut de f**k up. Or just volunteer to do what they propose others to do to Iran.

jeff_davis

How about arresting them all for treason as agents of a foreign power subverting the US govt on behalf of that foreign power. The idea that Israel is not directing AIPAC is as laughable as the suggestion that Romney's superpac isn't being directed by Romney. (Any politician and his/her respective superpac could serve as an example.) The space between the two is imaginary.

Jaime

They should be thrown out of the country or even better they should be sent to Guantanamo. They are traitors to their country.

tomofsnj

Israel has gotten a free pass since 1973. It is long overdue that they take the front row of wars that they clearly are so much desire. Bibi has become prime minister by using his dead brother who was killed in the african raid in the 1970's. Bibi is so quick to call for military action but clearly he was not willing to enter the trenches. It is a disgrace that Israel has never provided any manhours to any military operation of the United States of the United Nations. That includes the many years of the vietnam and korean conflicts.
No more wars for the benefit of those that do not feel they should be involved in. If it is important then they should serve and serve up front. After all they make a lot of money getting our kids killed.

andy

Since 1948.

El Tonno

So, *do* Israelis have the capacity or *don't* Israelis have the capacity?

I'm getting conflicting messages here.

baz

they dont. they got their clocks cleaned by a bunch of bearded teenage guerrillas in lebanon in 2006. THey are only able to terrorize unarmed and half starved civilians in gaza successfully engage women and children. The cowards know they cannot fight iran because iran would beat the snot out of them.

The israelis most likely will get us to fight this battle for them by choreographing another 9/11 type event which our media will be quick to blame on Iran

Jaime

But these were not just any teenage guerrilas. They were well prepared, fanatic and fearless. A more than a good match for the IDF.

the lion

And they beat the snot out of them WITHOUT Tanks, Airsupport or anti aircraft weapons, Israeli Pilots have a problem in that they are not used to fighting wars anymore that cant shoot back. Israel is not capable of a succesful attack on Iranian Nuclear targets, except maybe the Working Power light water reactor on the Gulf coast and to bomb a working reactor is a serious WAR CRIME. Also noting that it is run by the Russians and they have already warned Israel against this. There will be Russian Retaliation if this reactor is bombed it is full of Russian Technicians and Scientists!

El Tonno

I am also looking forward to the media cries of anguish about "Laws of War" and "Irresponsible Behaviour towards War Prisoners" when American Fighter Jocks will be paraded on Iranian TV to present public confessions.

Better order more popcorn.

mike

As bad as this situation is, this article is good news, I hope the author isn't being over optimistic.

Ubikwitus

There is more than an elite who think the sabre-rattling over Iran is just plain, well, stupid.

That probably includes some of the 'nose holders' who are currently trying to pick the next Republican Presidential candidate from a stunning array of cu*ts.

persnipoles

Hah! Gelb said 'we.' Standards are pretty low when the guy who maybe only let himself be 'quickmarched' seems to be the one you shouldn't slap. From the other quotes, these are just rats on a sinking ship. Seem to recall that the neocon profile often included 'repentant commie.' What mischief are these toads moving on to do as they become 'repentant neocons?'

deliaruhe

I wish a few of these guys would ring up my prime minister, Stephen Harper, and tell him to get off his high horse. Harper has fantasies about being one of the international bigshots, whether it's hawking his filthy tarsands oil or sucking up to Avigdor Lieberman.

Luther Blee

"My initial support for the war [in Iraq] was symptomatic of unfortunate tendencies within the foreign policy community, namely the disposition and incentives to support wars to retain political and professional credibility. We 'experts' have a lot to fix about ourselves, even as we 'perfect' the media."
– CFR President Leslie Gelb

Gelb sounds great – but what happens when the proper "incentives to support wars to retain political and professional credibility" is waved in front of him and his CFR buddies?

Having been made to look like morons by trading in their intellectual integrity by supporting an Iraq Invasion that could not even be bothered to turn up fake WMDs (much less preventing the country from moving into Iran's orbit…) the liberal elites are now holding out for better "incentives" this time around.

Basically their price is that the neo-cons must provoke Iran into attacking first or are willing to run some 'false flag' terrorism in USA/Israel – then they will restart producing jingoistic essays & NYT columns again.

Anti_republocrat

At least he briefly let the truth slip out. I've been saying for years that the true, unstated goals of US foreign policy have nothing to do with the stated goals of fighting terrorism, spreading democracy and stability or even the more ignoble sometimes stated goals of hegemony or control of oil. The true, unstated goals of US foreign policy are 1) profits for the MIC, 2) re-election of politicians, 3) promotions for military brass and 4) yes, "incentives to support wars to retain political and professional credibility." In fact, these goals are often at odds with the stated goals, especially stability. The "arc of instability" was a Pentagon invention, and it does everything in its power in Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan and elsewhere to promote the instability that justifies more intervention. It's actually quite refreshing to hear the truth slip out once in a while.

Of course, the biggest problem for us in the peace community is that these policies, when measured against the actual unstated goals, have been wildly successful. Therefore, they are unlikely to be reversed anytime soon.

Nathan

I would like to make only one comment regarding the use by the author of the phrase “Great Satan”, although not the author’s fault, but a common misuse of the term.

Referring to the U.S. as ‘Great Satan’ is erroneous due to a mistranslation from day one. This was probably done purposely by the western media with the intention of bestowing some sort of dignity to the U.S. The actual Persian translation is ‘Big Satan’, similar to the way we talk about big devils and small devils. In that context the U.S. was a big Satan and Israel was a small one.

The phrase was coined by Ayatollah Khomeini, an authority on Islam. Khomeini never said ‘Great Satan’, he said ‘Big Satan’. People who say God is great never say Satan is great. Besides, the term Great Satan is an oxymoron! Greatness is for character; bigness is for size.

It is obvious that anyone who thinks the Ayatollah was talking about America’s greatness is off his rockers!

persnipoles

Helpful and significant.

R.Parker

The Ayatollah was right–the USA has become a Big Satan and Isra-hell a Little Satan. The sooner both are consigned to the dustbin of history, the greater chance the rest of the world has for surviving before Big Satan and Little Satan start World War III.

richard vajs

Maybe, some of the elite are not mathematically illiterate – Iran has 4 times the population of Iraq, and probably has 4 times the military ability to resist our occupation. So our costs of any military folly in Iran should be at least 4 times our costs in Iraq (most likely military costs are geometric; 4 squared or 16). The Iraq experience cost us 5,000 American dead, ten times that severely injured and about 3 Trillion dollars. So most likely attacking Iran would cost us up to 80,000 dead troops, close to a million severely injured, and up to 50 Trillion dollars blown out the ass for nada. And if we resort to nukes, the price could be destruction of our World. Even the idiotic flag waving morons of the GOP should be able to figure out that that is just too "mucking fuch". Maybe our elites will even tell our hysterical Israeli sweethearts that No! ( "Sugar Daddy" is just not rich enough to give them everything their little hearts desire).

persnipoles

Seems like now they're talking 'strike'(?) wrt Iran –kinda like the Osirac (sp?) reactor in Iraq in the '80s (~1984?) -really anything at all to keep the Hate Week momentum up. Drone use is to be expanded with 'troops' use decreased (I think that was reported here), so 'strikes' of the future will likely be unambiguous murder -or an even weaker 'military' pretext for murder. First strikes will target any specialists in the disabling of robots, they'll have posed no threat to the living, they will have been totally devoted to protecting the living from the non-living. This still will not weigh on the conscience of the type who bought the last two invasions. If there are people distancing themselves from the pustch on Iran now, it's because rationalizations are falling apart as history is obviously repeating. The exposure they suffered because of Iraq has made it mildly uncomfortable to be a lying, murdering sack.

devin

so are we or are we not going to strike Iran? this is my question. so if we strike and it is not bad enough then china will not make good on its promise? I have to believe that somewhere someone in china is having a real nice chat with who ever really makes the decition to strike Iran. maybe we can dodge nuclear exchange for a while. but if things get too desprite those in power may no longer care and will infact benifit by having some of its weaker alies struck down. We make alot of money rebuilding things. looks better when others blow them up.